VI. Tenure and Merit Review
Annual
Merit Review Process and Criteria (Q 24)
Click
to view snapshot results of (Q
24)
|
Approximately half the respondents believed that the annual merit review process in their unit – the procedure for determining salary increases – is clearly defined, that the criteria used to reach merit decisions are applied fairly from year to year, and that the process has significant value for faculty development. (See Tables 24 and 25 ) |
|
|
Differences by School Agriculture faculty answered similarly to the average in every case, except that they were more likely than average to believe that the merit review process has significant value for faculty development. Consumer and Family Sciences faculty were more likely than average to agree with almost every survey item related to merit review – that the merit review process is clearly defined in their unit, that the criteria are appropriate, and that they are applied fairly year to year. |
Click
on image to view larger. |
)
)
More than most also agreed that the process depends almost exclusively on the quantity of research produced and that decisions depend to an important degree on the quality of research produced, positive teaching evaluations by students, doing one’s fair share of committee and service work, and getting along well with the “right” people. Fewer than average agreed that the merit review process is influenced by peer review.
Education faculty were more likely than most to agree that the criteria are appropriate and clearly defined. They also agreed in higher proportions than average that receiving high teaching evaluations from students, doing one’s fair share of committee and service work, getting along well with the “right” people, and peer review influence merit review decisions. They are less likely than average to believe that these decisions depend almost exclusively on the quantity of research produced, and although they believe the criteria are appropriate and clearly defined, fewer than average believe that the merit review process has significant value for faculty development.
Engineering faculty, for their part, were less likely than average to believe that the merit review criteria are appropriate, that they are applied fairly, and that they are clearly defined. They were also less likely than average to perceive that merit review decisions depend on the quality of research produced and peer reviews.
Health Sciences faculty generally answered close to the average response for each item, although they were more likely than average to perceive that teaching evaluations by students influence merit review decisions and that the merit review process has significant value for faculty development.
Liberal Arts faculty were more likely than average to believe that the merit review process is clearly defined in their unit and that it depends almost exclusively on the quantity of research/creative work produced. They were less likely than average to believe that these decisions depend on the quality of work produced.
Library faculty believed, more than most, that merit review decisions in their unit depend on doing one’s fair share of committee work, getting along well with the “right” people, and peer review. Conversely, fewer than average perceived that teaching evaluations and the quantity or quality of one’s research/creative work influenced these decisions or that the merit review process has significant value for faculty development.
Those in Management were more likely than average to report that peer review and teaching evaluations influence merit review decisions and less likely than average to report that doing one’s fair share of committee and service work and getting along well with the “right” people influenced the decisions. They were also less likely than average to perceive that the merit review process has significant value for faculty development.
Smaller proportions of Science faculty than average perceived that getting along well with the “right” people, doing one’s fair share of committee and service work, and receiving high teaching evaluations influenced merit review decisions. They were also less likely than average to believe that these decisions depend almost exclusively on the quantity of research work produced and more likely than most to believe that decisions are based on the quality of work produced.
Technology faculty were among the least likely to perceive that merit decisions are based almost exclusively on the quantity of research produced, and among the most likely to perceive that doing one’s fair share of committee and service work, receiving high teaching evaluations from students, and getting along well with the "right" people influence merit review decisions. They were also more likely than most to perceive that the criteria used are appropriate and that the merit review process has significant value for faculty development.
Finally, Veterinary Medicine faculty were less likely than average to report that the merit review criteria are applied fairly or that they are clearly defined. They were more likely than average to perceive that peer review and the quality of one’s research are important factors in merit decisions, and among the least likely to believe that these decisions depend almost exclusively on the quantity of research produced.
Differences by Rank
Attitudes regarding the annual merit review process virtually mirror attitudes regarding tenure review when considered by rank. Assistant professors were the least likely to perceive that the process is clearly defined and the most likely to believe that doing one’s fair share of committee and service work is important in order to receive a positive merit review. They were also the most likely to report that the merit review process is influenced by peer review, a question that was not explored concerning the tenure process.
Associate professors held the most negative views about the merit review process, just as they did concerning the tenure process. Specifically, they were the least likely to believe that the quality of one’s research or creative work influences merit review decisions and the least likely to perceive that the criteria used to reach merit decisions are appropriate and are applied fairly year to year. Finally, they were the least likely to believe that the merit review process has significant value for faculty development.
Professors, as with their perceptions regarding the tenure review process, were the least likely to say that merit review decisions depend almost exclusively on the quantity of research/creative work produced and that to receive a positive merit review, it is important to get along well with the “right” people.
Differences by Gender
As with the tenure review process analyses, gender differences must be understood in the larger context of males' and females’ distribution by rank and school affiliation. That being said, in this case, males and females answered half the questions regarding merit review in very similar ways. With the other five questions, females were more likely than males to answer as assistant professors did. They were more likely than males to believe that merit review decisions rely almost exclusively on the quantity of research/creative work produced (55% vs. 48%) and that getting along well with the “right” people is important in order to receive a positive merit review (61% vs. 50%).
Males, on the other hand, tended to view the merit review process more fairly than females did. They were more likely to indicate that the criteria used to reach merit decisions are generally appropriate (65% vs. 59%), that they are applied fairly (61% vs. 50%), and that the merit review process has significant value for faculty development (61% vs. 49%).
Differences by Race
As mentioned with the tenure discussion above, differences by race are also difficult to interpret without further analyses because of differences in representation across schools and ranks. With that precaution in mind, it is interesting to note that Caucasians were the most likely to believe that the quality of one’s research/creative work strongly influences merit review decisions (49% vs. 41% of underrepresented minorities and 36% of Asian Americans) and that the processes and criteria used to reach merit review decisions are applied fairly year to year (59% vs. 50% of underrepresented minorities and 52% of Asian Americans).
Asian Americans, compared to underrepresented minorities and Caucasians, were the most likely to believe that these decisions depend almost exclusively on the quantity of research/creative work produced (57% vs. 41% and 50% respectively), that peer review influences the process (44% vs. 33% and 32% respectively), and that the process has significant value for faculty development (81% vs. 47% and 58% respectively).
Underrepresented minorities, compared to Asian Americans and Caucasians, were the most likely to perceive that receiving high teaching evaluations from students (69% vs. 48% and 50% respectively), doing one’s fair share of committee and service work (67% vs. 52% and 56% respectively), and getting along well with the “right” people are important factors in merit review decisions.
Please add any comments you would like to make about how the merit review process works in your unit. (Q 24b)
One in three respondents answered the open-ended question regarding merit review and negative comments outnumbered positive comments ten to one. Across the schools, respondents repeatedly cited four problems concerning the process: 1) the criteria are unclear, mysterious, and unfair; 2) there is not enough money in any given year to make a difference; 3) research, teaching, and service should all be rewarded, rather than just research; and 4) the process is full of favoritism and politics. These and other issues are described below, in order from the most to least commonly cited negative and then positive comments.
The process does not work well and needs to be changed:
“In its current form, the merit review process for my unit is a very secretive and poorly described process. Only once has the unit head discussed what is involved in the merit review process with the faculty, and this has been since my unit had a new head take over. Additionally, the merit review process COULD have significant value for faculty development, but with the "formula" for pay increases a closely guarded secret and with limited understanding of how the merit review links to promotion decisions, it is unclear how this process is helpful to faculty in its current form.”
“Since there is no peer review, no objective and logical basis for the merit review, no feedback or ranking except a good-ole-boy ‘we're so glad you're here,’ there continues to be NO LOGICAL BASIS FOR RAISES. It is common for the administration to give big/bigger raises to those threatening to leave ‘market competition’, etc., or to their buddies or to predetermined stars based on whose determination? In fact, threats to leave by perceived stars have become the established method of getting ahead here. There is never a decent rationale given for raise decisions, including merit, it continues to be a ‘black box’ process full of administrator-babble. THIS IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT CAUSE OF POOR MORALE IN OUR DEPT AND SCHOOL. Established, senior faculty who would find it hard to move, who are continuing to work very hard and doing a very good job, continue to get screwed at the expense of acquiring and retaining perceived young superstars, who often don't pan out and LEAVE ANYWAY, after this considerable investment.”
“Perhaps the merit review process could be better streamlined if faculty were given information in writing as to what exactly is taken into consideration for the review. How much teaching, research, conference participation, etc. count, and who makes the decisions. Perhaps if there were some outside review of how the dept. head applies these criteria could add an effective checks & balances.”
“It would be very helpful if the head of department would tell his/her faculty members what they are being rewarded for if they receive high raise. Importantly, it would be very helpful the department head would let those who are given low raises know why they received low raises.”
“The procedure adopted by the University Senate is not followed.” “[My department head’s] merit decisions are arbitrary and based on whether a particular faculty member is on his ‘good list’ or ‘bad list.’ He makes these decisions on his own without input from faculty peers.” “The merit review process is totally related to whether the department head likes the faculty member, the member's race, the member's gender and the marital status.” “Merit reviews and raises, influence on school programs and policies, allocation of various resources and the promotion process are all easy to understand: POLITICS. Either ignore academic excellence in teaching and research and ingratiate yourself to ‘right’ people, or suffer the consequences!”
“This is the worst run, most ridiculous process I have ever seen. The dept head is completely unprepared, and for at least FIVE YEARS RUNNING, hasn’t even read or looked at the document before the meeting for others and me. You basically sit there and see if he can figure out on the spot what you've been doing that year. This is a ridiculous waste of time and effort and ends up meaning nothing. I have never received the "required" final page of the school document, i.e., dept head evaluation and comments and signed off by the head. This is a joke that points to the ludicrous incompetence of our administration and the fact they are not being held accountable for anything.”
“I have observed over the years that the difference in merit increase between highly productive faculty and highly unproductive faculty in the areas of research, etc. is sometimes only 1%. There is, therefore, little or no incentive for the unproductive faculty to produce, particularly when the productive faculty must fund their own travel and research due to lack of internal funding. In other words, faculty who produce nothing and spend nothing come out ahead.”
“The merit system tends to discourage those who have "down" years in certain categories like grants, publications, even though they may have made significant contributions to the department or university in other ways. It can divide faculty and staff and cause lower morale. The pitiful raises that are given out are a disgrace to faculty who work extremely hard.”
“Merit review processes would be useful if there was ever any money passed around. As it turns out, the difference between doing absolutely nothing in our department and killing yourself works out to maybe a 1000-2000 bucks a year raise, which if you're working 60 hour weeks over a 34 week year translates into a .50-1.00/hour raise. Having to go through the considerable amount of time to log, develop and submit the merit brief tends to increase resentment when the raises are passed out.”
“The amount of money involved is not worth the effort for faculty to present their own cases and for others to go to the trouble of assessing those cases.”
“Criteria are too narrow and give no recognition of the diverse ways in which faculty can make significant contributions and be active professionally.”
“The evaluation depends on conformity with the narrow definitions of merit as interpreted by the Dept. Chair.”
“Good teaching doesn't count. Research is evaluated primarily by number of publications. In my last annual performance review my department head did not discuss my activities and accomplishments at all."
“Exemplary activity in any and all of the three main fields--research, teaching and service--should be rewarded.”
“The University should always provide a fixed percentage pay raise which they announce AND an additional outstanding-merit pay raise in dollars to a unit that is NOT ANNOUNCED as part of the percentage raise.”
“I strongly think there should be some sort of standard raise in addition to merit increases. Not because merit isn't important, but because by making raises entirely dependent on merit, and by having a limited pie to divide up, the system essentially pits faculty members against one another. People who don't publish a lot mutter bitterly about the high salaries that publishing faculty are assumed to get. Having publishing be something that affects one's salary, but doesn't determine it completely, might reduce some of these antagonisms.”
The process works well:
-
The process is well-defined
“The merit review process is well defined, clear, and articulated fully. It is clear what the categories are and what levels of performance are needed to warrant a pay raise.”
“The process of reviewing the merit document is well defined, and very fair.”
-
The process is rigorous and fair
“Our merit review process includes input at both the level of Department Head and at the level of the Dean - thus insuring equity across the entire School. I believe the system in place is rigorous, fair, and transparent in general.”
“Every faculty member including full professors MUST write an annual performance review and they receive written and verbal confidential feedback from the Department Head. Then this written information is reviewed by the Associate Department Head and feedback is provided to the Department Head. All assistant and associate professors are reviewed by the Primary Committee every year with written and verbal feedback from the Department Head and this information is reviewed by the Associate Department Head. This Department seriously believes and practices faculty review annually.”
“The merit review process is one of the best aspects of employment at Purdue. In my department, it works adequately and is far better than any other administrative process.”
Differences by School
Respondents’ overwhelmingly negative views regarding the merit review process were consistent across the schools.
